Arthur
Wellesley, the Duke of Wellington, famous for defeating Napoleon's
Grande Armee at Waterloo, once said "I've spent my entire life
trying to discover what the fellow on the other side of the hill was
up to."

And
so it is with intelligence gathering and analysis. As a former intel
analyst, I've spent many years on various missions beginning in the
mid-1980s and going beyond Desert Storm taking pieces of the "global
threat puzzle" and trying to fit the pieces together to discover what
the "other fellow" was up to, and what he would do next.

In
the past two decades I have witnessed a series of events that are
extremely disturbing. Events, that if put together as pieces of a
puzzle, seem to form a picture that is most disturbing-and even terrifying.
Taken alone, they mean little. But taken in whole, the mosaic forms
more than just a pattern-one that is planned, mission-oriented, and
taking place almost as if there were a list of events that must occur
to accomplish the final mission.

The
"final mission" is two-fold: destruction of nation-states, and establishment
of a New Age global-socialist New World Order.

For
those who think this is "conspiracy theory," or simply fear-factor-fiction,
let me ask this: Do you think the US Constitution is intact, and is
this the same country as it was fifty years ago? If not, why not?
And what and who caused the change?

Let's
all play intelligence analyst. We'll do this by examining the reports,
putting the pieces on the wall and seeing what kind of picture it
forms. Here are the clues:

At
the end of World War I, a new idea was born that national governments
could not be trusted to govern their indigenous populations in an
effective manner, and help maintain international peace. Instead,
due to the carnage of World War I-the Great War-national governments
should become subservient to a global entity. This entity was formed
and became the League of Nations. However, the world and most countries
were not ready for such a "super-government" and refused to get on
board. The globalists were furious, but did not give up.

In
1945, when World War II ended, a private "club" called the Council
on Foreign Relations, which is not part of any government agency,
but instead is the American faction of the Royal Society of International
Affairs in London, was instrumental in creating a new globalist organization
called the United Nations. This body's mission was to slowly reduce
the authority of national governments and replace them with a world
council of representatives, none of which were elected, and none of
which were patriotic nationalists. Their mission was to establish
a world government in which other nations were simply nation states
in their "New World Order."

In
1950 two wars broke out in Asia: the Korean war and the French Indochina
war. During these "conflicts" the French, who attempted to retain
their pre-war colony, were defeated by Ho Chi Minh's Vietminh guerrillas
(by using US supplied equipment and weapons provided from the surplus
stock on Okinawa left over from World War II). Meanwhile the United
Nations forces intervened in an invasion of South Korea by North Korea-who
was quickly reinforced by the Communist Chinese army. The French eventually
lost their colony after the debacle at Dien Bien Phu in 1954. The
South Koreans retained their country, but the war never ended. A truce
was called in 1953, and Korea has become the longest war in American
history.

The
bottom line here is that the world-and the American people-were mentally
conditioned that a single country (like France) could no longer win
a war by itself, and the combined efforts of the UN forces in Korea
barely was able to stand up against Communist aggression. (In point
of fact, all UN forces' plans had to be cleared by a general at UN
headquarters, who just happened to be a Russian, and all plans were
relayed to the Chinese well in advance of an operation.)

But
the American people-who had just won a two-ocean war against two powerful
enemies-had to be convinced that we could not longer fight a war alone
or stand alone. The stage was set for Vietnam.

The
US forces, along with the South Vietnamese Army, and Australian allies,
were forced to fight a war that they were not allowed to win. Lyndon
B. Johnson and his "whiz kids" in the White House micromanaged the
war to the point that generals in the field could not pursue an operation
to its maximum effect, and even had to give up terrain that we took
with American blood, plus stay within the confines of South Vietnam
and not attack or pursue the enemy into his safe havens in Cambodia,
Laos and North Vietnam. The end result was that the North signed the
Paris Peace Accords simply to give President Richard Nixon (and Henry
Kissinger) a means of extracting our forces from South Vietnam with
"peace with honor." Two years later the North invaded the South and
the rest is history. The lesson to the American people, via our media,
is that we should not use our military forces abroad in any affair
that might turn into a "quagmire" or "another Vietnam." The media,
controlled by members of the Council on Foreign Relations and other
global socialists (including their Asian and European counterparts),
successfully conditioned the American psyche that we "do not want
any more Vietnam style entanglements."

After
Vietnam our armed forces underwent what was called a "Reduction in
Force" or RIF. At the same time the "draft" was put on the back burner
and a "volunteer army" was created. All of this at the height of the
Cold War when Russia and China were building their forces. By the
early 1980s the threat envisioned by the Pentagon was an attack on
Western Europe by the Soviet Union through Germany. Known as the Fulda
Gap scenario, where it was envisioned the Russians would push through
with high speed armor assaults, it was theorized-and prepared for-that
we would be forced to fight a fighting withdrawal through Europe while
politicians decided if we would employ nuclear weapons. No one ever
came up with a public answer to this threat, and in the end it never
happened-yet.

There
is an old military axiom that says that the military gains its best
support when there is a barbarian at the gate. In other words, most
people don't worry about supporting or funding the military unless
they fear a threat that would affect them. By the mid 1980s a new
threat was growing ever more frightening: Terrorism.

It
actually gained U.S. attention during the Munich Olympics when the
Black September terrorist gang of Palestinians kidnapped and killed
members of the Israeli Olympic team. This was followed by many other
"Arab Terrorist" attacks that often included American victims: skyjackings,
an attack on a cruise ship, bombings, and kidnappings and assassinations.
This new threat has been growing for over four decades and has become
the current "barbarian at the gate." Don't get me wrong: it's real,
it's there, and it's coming. But we have to ask how much of it was
originally created or financed by our own intelligence services. We
know that Osama bin Laden had CIA support in Afghanistan when the
Russians occupied the country, and that Abu Nidal was a US intelligence
asset. Who knows how many others?

Since
the alleged "fall of the Soviet Union", the US and other western powers
have undergone a political reduction in our armed forces. Beginning
during the George H.W. Bush administration-up until Desert Storm when
we were caught in a very vulnerable position militarily-our military
has systematically been reduced in force structure, equipment destroyed
or stored without proper maintenance, and numbers of personnel and
equipment reduced to the point of being basically combat ineffective
if committed to a major war.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

In
the 1990s, during the Clinton regime, when bases were being closed
and Army divisions being cut, and tanks, planes and ships were being
put in mothballs, a Pentagon general gave a speech to the CASQ officers
command and staff class at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. He said, paraphrasing,
"…with the build down of our armed forces, should we become committed
to a two-ocean war, or be deployed to more than two foreign campaigns,
and should a national emergency occur inside the continental United
States, we will be forced to call upon foreign assets to patrol our
streets."

The
thought of this at the time was terrifying. But during the Los Angeles
riots Henry Kissinger stated that even though at that time US citizens
would not stand for foreign troops on US soil, that some day we would
welcome them with open arms. For part two, click 2 below.

Craig Roberts has lived a life many people only
dream about. He is an internationally published author of over a dozen
books, has written hundred of magazine and newspaper articles, appeared
in several shows on The History Channel, written for Time-Life books,
hosted a radio talk show and appeared on scores of radio talk shows. He
is a US Marine Vietnam combat veteran, where he served in a line company
and as a Marine sniper--hence his extensive writing on marksmanship, sniping,
weapons and the 2nd Amendment.

He is also a career police officer, having retired
in 1996 with over 26 years of service with the Tulsa Police Department,
where he served in patrol division, undercover assignments, SWAT (Special
Operations), and as a police helicopter pilot with the Air Support Unit
for 14 years. He has had a dual career, while serving as a police officer
he continued his military career in the reserves where he completed 30
years total service in 1999 as an infantry and intelligence officer.

He retired at the rank of lieutenant colonel
in the Army Reserve. Craig is a highly decorated combat veteran, and holds
four medals from the police department including the Tulsa Police Department's
second highest award, the Medal of Valor. Craig is an contributing writer
for NewsWithViews.com and the
author of The
Medusa File: Crimes and Coverups of the US Government, Kill Zone:
A Sniper Looks at Dealey Plaza, and One Shot--One Kill: America's Combat
Snipers among others.